Nintendo Co Ltd v. Resonant Systems Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01098
• Patent #: 8,860,337
• Filed: June 23, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of America Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Resonant Systems, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 2-3

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Linear Vibration Modules and Linear-Resonant Vibration Modules
• Brief Description: The ’337 patent discloses vibration modules for electromechanical devices. The technology produces vibrations through the linear oscillation of a moveable weight or component within a cylindrical housing, driven by electromagnetic forces.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wakuda-Ramsay-Rossi-Aldrich - Claims 2-3

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wakuda (Patent 7,005,811), Ramsay (Application # 2008/0294984), Rossi (Patent 4,879,641), and Aldrich (NASA Tech Briefs (Apr. 2008)).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wakuda disclosed the core linear vibration module, including a housing, a moveable component, a driving coil, and a control system. Ramsay taught user-configurable haptic effects, meeting limitations for user input that specifies frequency and amplitude. Rossi disclosed a standard H-bridge switching circuit for driving the coil in opposite directions, and Aldrich provided a feedback control algorithm for maintaining oscillation at a resonant frequency. For claim 3, Petitioner asserted Wakuda’s disclosure of generating a waveform with a natural frequency modulated by a lower envelope frequency taught the claimed complex vibration modes, including beat and aperiodic waveforms.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve upon a known system. A POSITA would modify Wakuda’s basic vibration generator with Ramsay’s user-customization software to enhance user experience in common devices like portable game consoles. A POSITA would then implement Rossi’s well-known and reliable H-bridge circuit to provide the necessary oscillating current. Finally, a POSITA would incorporate Aldrich’s known “hill-climbing” algorithm to solve Wakuda’s stated goal of tracking the resonant frequency, for which Wakuda lacked implementation details.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying known techniques (user-customization, standard drive circuits, feedback control) to a known vibration system to achieve the predictable benefits of improved performance and enhanced user control.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Fukumoto-Aldrich - Claim 2

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fukumoto (Patent 7,292,227) and Aldrich (NASA Tech Briefs (Apr. 2008)).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Fukumoto disclosed an electronic device (e.g., a PDA) with a linear oscillatory actuator containing all basic components of claim 2: a housing, a moveable weight, a power supply, user-input features, and a driving coil. Fukumoto further disclosed using a processor to control a drive signal to cause oscillation. Petitioner argued that Fukumoto taught combining a vibration-causing waveform with a sound-causing waveform to generate complex vibration modes from simultaneous oscillation at multiple frequencies.
  • Motivation to Combine: Although Fukumoto described the need to operate at a resonant frequency for power efficiency, it lacked specific details on how to achieve and maintain this resonance. A POSITA would have been motivated to look to references like Aldrich, which explicitly taught a known “hill-climbing” feedback control algorithm for driving an actuator at or near resonance. Implementing Aldrich’s algorithm would provide the missing implementation details and improve the performance of Fukumoto’s system in a predictable manner.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the modification involved implementing a known control algorithm in software on Fukumoto’s existing processor to solve a problem articulated in Fukumoto, which is a routine design step.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Fukumoto-Aldrich-Saiki-Masahiko - Claim 3

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fukumoto (Patent 7,292,227), Aldrich (NASA Tech Briefs (Apr. 2008)), Saiki (Patent 7,006,641), and Masahiko (Patent 8,917,486).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Fukumoto and Aldrich from Ground 2. Petitioner argued that the specific complex vibration modes recited in dependent claim 3 were taught by Saiki and Masahiko. Saiki disclosed generating complex vibration waveforms by combining multiple frequencies, teaching a primary oscillation frequency modulated by a modulating frequency. Masahiko explicitly disclosed generating both beat frequency vibrations and aperiodic waveforms by using particular drive signals.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Saiki and Masahiko with the Fukumoto-Aldrich system to provide a greater variety and complexity of haptic feedback, a stated goal of Fukumoto. Saiki’s complex waveforms and Masahiko’s specific beat and aperiodic waveforms were known techniques for enhancing tactile effects in mobile devices, making them logical additions to Fukumoto’s system to provide clearer and more varied haptic notifications.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success because it involved implementing known waveform generation techniques via software modifications on the base Fukumoto-Aldrich system, which was well within the ordinary skill in the art.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Fukumoto alone (Ground 4) and Fukumoto in view of Saiki and Masahiko (Ground 5). These grounds relied on an "Abridged Construction" of the term "control component" where the feedback control algorithm taught by Aldrich was not required, making Aldrich’s teachings unnecessary to the combination.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the terms "driving component" and "control component" in claim 2 should be construed as means-plus-function terms under §112(6), despite lacking the word "means."
• "driving component": The claimed function is driving the moveable component to oscillate. The corresponding structure identified in the ’337 patent is a coil of conductive wire (e.g., coil 420, coil 626), an electromagnet, or their equivalents.
• "control component": The claimed function is controlling the supply of power to cause oscillation at a user-specified frequency and amplitude. The corresponding structure is a processor (CPU) programmed to perform a specific control algorithm, along with an associated switch (e.g., H-bridge).

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• A central technical contention involved the scope of the algorithm performed by the "control component." Petitioner presented arguments under two alternative interpretations:
  • "Full Construction": This construction requires the processor to perform a full feedback-loop algorithm (e.g., steps 706-716 of Fig. 7A of the ’337 patent) that monitors sensor feedback to maintain resonance. Grounds 1, 2, and 3 relied on this construction, which necessitated the inclusion of Aldrich.
  • "Abridged Construction": This is a narrower construction adopted by the Board in a related IPR, requiring only a two-step algorithm for generating an oscillating signal based on user inputs, without the feedback monitoring steps. Grounds 4 and 5 argued that under this construction, Aldrich is unnecessary.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 2 and 3 of the ’337 patent as unpatentable.